Chana Krinsky, Joseph Epstein, Abe Gallis, and Menachem Shemtov, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01474 (D. Conn., September 1, 2017), arises out of the Defendant’s systemic misrepresentations regarding the characteristics and sources of its Poland Spring(R) brand “100% Natural Spring Water”, specifically by labeling and marketing it as “spring water”. When in reality, none of the water marketed and sold by the Defendant as Poland Spring Water actually meets the definition of “spring water” under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations, says the complaint.

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. is a business-unit of Nestle Waters that produces and distributes numerous brands of bottled water across North America. [BN]

Judge Gordin J. Quist of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, remanded the case styled TAMARA NAPPIER, as mother and next fried of T.N., a minor child, on behalf of T.N. and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16- CV-636 (W.D. Mich.).

As a cost-saving measure, the City of Flint switched its water source from the City of Detroit water system to the Flint River. In connection with the switch, officials discontinued corrosion- control treatments required by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and added ferric chloride, which increased the corrosivity of the Flint River water, to reduce formation of trihalomethanes from organic matter. Plaintiff Tamara Nappier, the mother and next friend of T.K., a minor, alleges that defendants knew that the water pumped from the Flint River was toxic and not fit for consumption, but nonetheless assured the public that it was safe to drink. Plaintiff further alleges that, in spite of defendants’ assurances, T.K. experienced an elevated blood lead level and suffered permanent brain damage as a result of drinking water from the Flint River. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were grossly negligent and/or negligent in participating in, or facilitating, the switch to Flint River water as the source of the City of Flint’s water. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all individuals who were minors, resided in the City of Flint, and suffered brain damage as a result of ingesting water supplied from the Flint River.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action case in the Michigan Court of Claims on March 23, 2016, against Richard Snyder, Nick Lyon, Eden Wells, Nancy Peeler, and Robert(State defendants), Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, and Bradley Wurfel and Darnell Early (MDEQ defendants) and Gerald Ambrose. Plaintiff alleged a single substantive count of gross negligence and/or negligence against all defendants arising out of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

Busch removed the case to the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, pursuant to the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), alleging that pursuant to the federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. Section 300f et seq. and the EPA’s LCR, the EPA has delegated authority to the MDEQ to act on its behalf and regulate public water drinking systems and that defendant Busch took the actions alleged by plaintiff in the course of fulfilling his duties delegated by the EPA to the MDEQ. Defendant Busch alleged that he was standing in the shoes of the EPA and taking actions which EPA would have otherwise been required to take, and his alleged actions were taken pursuant to EPA’s oversight and guidance. Defendant Busch also alleged that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 because plaintiffs’ claims are inextricably intertwined with the construction, interpretation, and effect of the SDWA and the LCR.

Judge Quist concludes that the MDEQ defendants were not acting under any federal officer or agencies when they took the actions set forth in the complaint, and thus were not entitled to remove the case under the federal-officer removal statute. In addition, the court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction under the substantial federal question doctrine. Judge Quist will remand the case to the Michigan Court of claims for lack of jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Quist’s opinion dated March 31, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/sxGh5F from Leagle.com.

2. certifying case for settlement purposes, as a class action
with the subclasses defined as:

Settlement Class A:

Class A(1) – Class Representatives Moodie and Waterman:

“all current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven,
Sportsman 78, and 673 firearms containing a Remington
trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector.
Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither
citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
over the action and members of their families; (c)
governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates
(the “Trigger Connector Class”);

Class A(2) – Class Representative Delperdang:

“all current owners of Remington Model 710, 715, and 770,
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
(a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the
United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
and affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”);

Class A(3) – Class Representatives Otis and Keesy:

“all current owners of Remington Model 600, 660, and XP-100
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
(a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of
the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
and affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”);

Class A(4) – Class Representative Barbre:

“all current owners of Remington Model 721, 722, and 725
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
(a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the
United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
and affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”);

“all current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven
rifles containing an XMark Pro trigger mechanism
manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014, who have
not participated in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product
recall. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are
neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
over the action and members of their families; (c)
governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the
“X-Mark Pro Class”)”; and

“all current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and
Model Seven rifles who replaced their rifle’s original
Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014.
Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither
citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
over the action and members of their families; (c)
governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the
“X-Mark Pro Class”);

3. declaring settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and
adequate;

4. incorporating terms of the Fourth Amended Settlement
Agreement as the Order of this Court;

9. appointing Angeion as the class action settlement
administrator to perform the duties assigned to it in the
settlement agreement;

10. approving Plaintiffs’ application for fees and expenses in
the amount of $12.5 million;

11. approving Plaintiffs’ request for costs and expenses in
the amount of $474,892.75 (that amount shall be subtracted
from the $12.5 million awarded to class counsel);

12. granting Plaintiffs’ request for service awards to class
representatives in the amount of $2,500 each; and

13. directing Defendants to publish a copy of the Order on the
Settlement Website.

Pursuant to the terms of the Fourth Amended Settlement Agreement,
the Court retains jurisdiction over the parties, including the
settlement classes, in matters relating to the administration,
consummation, validity, enforcement, and interpretation of the
settlement agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at least the following ways: Defendants, either directly or through its agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff and the Class members via their cellular telephone by using a telephone facsimile machine, thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class members to reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiff and the Class members previously paid and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members.

Defendant, DoorDash, Inc. is a food delivery service that allows customers to place food orders, through a mobile phone application or through its website, from various restaurants in the DoorDash marketplace.

Tyler Nance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00178, (E.D. Ark., March 22, 2017), seeks to recover damages, including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief resulting from restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Defendant 1-800 Contacts is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 66 East Wadsworth Park Drive, Draper, Utah 84020. It sells contact lenses and related products over the internet and by telephone throughout the United States, including the State of Arkansas.

1-800 Contacts allegedly entered into bidding agreements with search engine companies that did not display the prices, products and services offered by its competitors in the market for online sales of contact lenses, thus limiting price and competition. [BN]